Filed: Mar. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2241 BARBARA D. GAITHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Office of the General Counsel; MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00288-BO) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2241 BARBARA D. GAITHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Office of the General Counsel; MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00288-BO) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2241
BARBARA D. GAITHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Office of the General
Counsel; MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:07-cv-00288-BO)
Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barbara D. Gaither, Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Patricia
Bellinger-Honig, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Elisa Frances
Donohoe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barbara D. Gaither appeals the district court’s order
affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Gaither’s applications
for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income. We must uphold the Commissioner’s disability
determination if the decision is supported by substantial
evidence and the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) (2006); Craig v. Chater,
76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.
1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2